What if a (generic) president murders someone in cold blood, with his own hands?

[originalpckelly]

Can that president pardon himself?

What about rape? What if a president rapes someone, can the president pardon themselves then?

When does it become OK for someone to pardon themselves as president?

Or does this:
"and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Mean that any significant crime cannot be pardoned by the person who committed it themselves?

You would have to accept that the Framers set up yet another absolutist monarchy, after having suffered through a bloodly and protracted revolution, in order for this to be true, that the president can commit any crime the president chooses.

Perhaps when the President does it, it really isn't illegal.

[malaise]

1. Apparently he can if he can get DOJ to present tortured logic

changing laws even though the legislative branch supposedly writes the law.

[originalpckelly]

3. Of course, this is like INS v. Chadha, they've been violating the basic....

legislative process of the US Constitution. I posted about this yesterday, and it sank like a stone. So I'm rephrasing this.

[originalpckelly]

4. Here is a Wiki about INS v. Chadha + the actual decision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_v._Chadha

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0462_0919_ZS.html

It's actually a fairly easy syllabus to read. Here's the important part:
"8. The congressional veto provision in § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional. Pp. 944-959.

(a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1 -- requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives -- and § 7 -- requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the President, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House -- represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Pp. 944-951.

(b) Here, the action taken by the House pursuant to § 244(c)(2) was essentially legislative in purpose and effect, and thus was subject to the procedural requirements of Art. I, § 7, for legislative action: passage by a majority of both Houses and presentation to the President. The one-House veto operated to overrule the Attorney General and mandate Chadha's deportation. The veto's legislative character is confirmed by the character of the congressional action it supplants; i.e., absent the veto provision of § 244(c)(2), neither the House nor the Senate, or both acting together, could effectively require the Attorney General to deport an alien once the Attorney General, in the exercise of legislatively delegated authority, had determined that the alien should remain in the United States. Without the veto provision, this could have been achieved only by legislation requiring deportation. A veto by one House under § 244(c)(2) cannot be justified as an attempt at amending the standards set out in § 244(a)(1), or as a repeal of § 244 as applied to Chadha. The nature of the decision implemented by the one-House veto further manifests its legislative character. Congress must abide by its delegation of authority to the Attorney General until that delegation is legislatively altered or revoked. Finally, the veto's legislative character is confirmed by the fact that, when the Framers intended to authorize either House of Congress to act alone and outside of its prescribed bicameral legislative role, they narrowly and precisely defined the procedure for such action in the Constitution. Pp. 951-959."

This needs to be a legal test.

The Framers had a particular process in which the executive could participate in lawmaking. OLC legal opinions and executive orders, appear to fall under lawmaking, but instead of following the procedure for normal lawmaking outlined clearly in the US Constitution, the executive branch has been making law on its own. In this case, the interpretations and redefinition of legal terms was the instrument of lawmaking.

[Horse with no Name]

2. But don't forget

a blow job between two consenting adults is impeachable.
Don't ever every forget that these fucking republicans CONTROL the agenda--even while they are in the minority because they are pimps to the presstitutes.

[Duende azul]

5. No no. It´s not personal. It´s about the "presidency".

Sorry, so you can´t have prosecution. It would harm the sacred institution.

[Jeep789]

6. Only if the President is a Republican

And I am not kidding.